This paper analyses the discourse within the UN Security Council concerning the Darfur conflict, using the securitisation framework developed by the Copenhagen School. It is a first move to apply Securitisation analysis to UN level. The paper aims at investigating whether a more precise understanding of the handling of the Darfur conflict can be developed with the use of the securitisation framework. While, at the same time, discussing strengths and weaknesses of the securitisation framework, in terms of applying it to UN level. The paper concludes that there was wide agreement on the identification of the Darfur conflict as a threat, but there was however strong disagreements on what measures to adopt. Furthermore we argue that the UN bureaucracy has played a major role in the securitisation of Darfur and have constituted important actors in terms of identifying the conflict and recommending policy on measures to implement. These conclusions leads us to two final recommendations for analysing securitisation within the UN: (1) A stronger focus on the actors, especially through constructivist theory of bureaucratic autonomy is necessary, as the bureaucracy plays a major role on this level; (2) An analytical emphasis on the division between identification of threats and mobilisation of measures, being aware that this division might only occur in language within the same forum.
|Uddannelser||Basis - International Samfundsvidenskabelig Bacheloruddannelse, (Bachelor uddannelse) Basis|
|Udgivelsesdato||20 jun. 2012|
- Security Council
- Copenhagen School
- Security Studies